Syracuse University Syracuse University

SURFACE SURFACE

Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects

Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects

Spring 5-1-2011

Media Bias in Covering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: With a Media Bias in Covering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: With a

Case Study of BBC Coverage and Its Foundation of Impartiality Case Study of BBC Coverage and Its Foundation of Impartiality

Gerard McTigue

Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone

Part of the International and Area Studies Commons, and the Near Eastern Languages and Societies

Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation McTigue, Gerard, "Media Bias in Covering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: With a Case Study of BBC Coverage and Its Foundation of Impartiality" (2011). Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects. 300. https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone/300

This Honors Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact surface@syr.edu.

1

Introduction:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, having lasted for many decades, has

created long involved actors outside the region. With such warfare and discord

comes an interest from the outside world as to what exactly is transpiring between

the two nations. With all of this in mind, it is, therefore, a reality that the events

in Israel and Palestine have traveled beyond borders and into the minds and hearts

of many around the world. This is where the media plays a major and decisive

role. Whether it is interest produced out of humanitarian regard for the lives of

those effected, political attention from a fellow nation’s government, economic

intrigue from businesses and markets impacted by the fighting, or even religious

fervor generated by the major root of the conflict, this issue has the world’s

communities watching. Who exactly is it then that gathers the news of what is

occurring and redistributes it to the global public at large who need and want to

know what is happening? The British Broadcasting Corporation, or BBC, is one

of the major news sources in the world, and is, therefore, an organization which is

globally relied upon to be informative, expeditious and first and foremost

impartial. By that same token, one can then ask whether or not the BBC breaks

news on the conflict while executing impartiality and whether or not this is even

their central goal.

The problems that arise in media coverage of the conflict are innumerable

and stem from various factors that effect reporting at a fundamental level; the

same factors that effect media coverage on many other types of news as well.

What country is the Media source based in? In this case we are presented with a

2

news source based in the United Kingdom with correspondents and satellite

broadcasting centers around the world. How strong and accurate are journalists’

and correspondents’ information sources and where are they getting their ‘facts’

from? The BBC draws its news from its own correspondents as well as cross

referencing with applicable regional and global news sources such as the

Associated Press and even entities like Al Jazeera. What are the political, social

and economic relationships between the country reporting and the countries

reported about? The BBC has many decades of history with Israel, both very high

and low periods, as well as many vested interests with Muslim nations

interconnected with Palestine. Both Muslim and Jewish communities prominently

exist in its base country of Great Britain and these faiths also have a social affect

on the country and how it relates to the Middle-Eastern region.

These questions have further complicated answers and, therefore, create

the overarching issue that faces us: Bias exists in media, but to what degree does

that apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the BBC, and how is that bias

generated? The following sections of this paper will further examine the reality of

bias in the Media and what that means for those of us consuming news on the

conflict. Furthermore, a more in depth look is taken at a major international news

source which has already been mentioned, the BBC, and how it reports on the

conflict. Through research on the BBC’s history of reporting on the conflict and

interviews with major BBC figures as well as some of its critics, a clearer

understanding of how this news organization reports on Israel and Palestine

emerges.

3

During a long period of gathering research from reading stories, watching

the news, and speaking with employees of the BBC, I have begun to get a better

idea of how the BBC has come to report the way it does. It has been vital to read

from different sources to gain an understanding of BBC history and practice and

in addition to this reading I have been fortunate enough to meet and talk with

many members of the BBC community who hold numerous places on staff. In my

conversations with Roger Hardy of the BBC World Service I was first introduced

to theme which was later repeated amongst fellow BBC employees that it is a

news source which prides itself on aiming for impartiality. In my next interview

with Malcolm Balen, writer of the Balen Report from 2004-05, I gained an

understanding of his role in examining the accusations of bias made against the

BBC and his ongoing process of ensuring balanced coverage on the conflict.

After this, a conversation with James Stephenson, former correspondent

from Jerusalem and the current Editor of the Six and Ten O’clock News, exposed

me to the logistical and practical aspect of news gathering and broadcasting and

the reality of the difficulties that exist when producing news segments. Lastly,

Sharif Nashashibi who works for Arab Media Watch gave me the outsider and

critical view on the shortcomings of BBC reporting and the things that go wrong

with the reporting which James Stephenson had tried to fortify in our interview.1

Comprehensively, my interviews, which I conducted with BBC employees,

1

In addition to the meeting with Arab Media Watch, I had hoped to have a

meeting with a representative from BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications

and Research Centre, unfortunately no one was ever available for an interview.

4

resulted in a common theme at the corporation which is presented throughout this

paper.

Lastly, I must point out that to give myself more stable background

knowledge and awareness of the tone of BBC reporting, a lot of time has been

spent personally examining the news it produces. Over a period of time I have

looked at reports put out by the BBC on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, providing

me with sources to personally examine the tone, wording, content, and other

important aspects of its reporting. Together with the interviews I conducted, this

research provides a more comprehensive view on how the BBC reports and how it

appears to viewers at home.

With all of this in mind I have started piecing together a perspective on the

BBC and the reporting of the Middle Eastern conflict. In the many years that the

BBC has reported on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it has come under

substantial fire from both organized and personal critics alike. From both sides,

the BBC has been continuously slammed with criticism after criticism that its

reporting is biased towards either of the sides in the conflict. The criticism was

fueled especially by the Blair administration when officials and the party in power

felt the BBC was not being balanced in its reporting. It was the realization that the

media was in fact having a sizable effect on public perspective of the conflict and

in turn the government’s foreign policy on the issue that the government took

such a large interest on the subject in the first place.

Separately from the concerns of the governments, the major mood in the

British public arena in particular is that the BBC tends to be “Pro-Palestinian”

5

with its reporting. In both the stories it broadcasts as well as how it chooses to

broadcast those stories, there are many accusations that the BBC does not report

in a balanced, impartial manner. It was my time with those actually working at

the BBC that painted somewhat of a different picture of its reporting and decision

making within its own walls. Despite numerous objections to the BBC’s

reporting, I have come to believe that in its internal practices and policies on

reporting the news, the BBC does, overall, try to report on the Middle Eastern

conflict in an unprejudiced and unbiased manner to the best of its ability.

We will now examine the findings of my interviews and research taking a

stance against a particular statement made by John Tusa of BBC World Service:

The very idea that telling the truth in government and public affairs

is the best policy must sound hopelessly unrealistic and idealistic.

Public communications have become something to capture, to

Influence and to manipulate. Either they are captured by the great

Moguls of the media - the Murdochs in America and Britain, the

Bertelsmanns in Germany, the Berlusconis in Italy, whose interest

in the control of the means of distribution are directly financial,

and who have, more often than not, a political line to put over, or

they are captured and seized by politicians who of course always

have a clear political line to put over (Tusa 56).

6

The Media and Balancing Coverage:

The issue of problems in Media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict has been around for many years and is one that has been examined by the

public, interests groups of the conflict, as well as some governments. For

example, in 2003 the United Nations’ Public Forum in Support of Middle East

Peace included a round table of speakers on the conflict and a resounding

message that emerged was the belief that media coverage on the subject was often

indeed biased. For the United Nations and those concerned, this was something

that needed to be addressed as they knew, and still do, that media coverage greatly

effects public opinion. At the same forum, another issued was raised on the

logistical side of reporting beyond what the Media reports and into how they

report. The speakers pointed the importance of language used in reporting and the

wording that news sources choose to use and how stories are framed.

A particular and major example of how different countries and media

organizations can alter and bend what the public hears and watches about events

in the world comes from a project initiated in 1998. A co-production initiative

was taken on by the BBC in the United Kingdom, PBS in the United States, and

MBC Abu-Dhabi for numerous Arab-States to create a six part documentary

series entitled The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs (Ashuri 1). Despite the

gathering of information and documenting portion being a group effort, each of

the entities were given final editing rights to the documentary which would air in

their particular region/zone. What they found was that regardless of these groups

7

starting with the same information, three very different products were released to

each of their viewing publics.

We repeatedly read that national news sources, especially publicly funded

news sources, in each of their respective countries or regions will tend to report

and, understandably, style what they broadcast on their stations to appeal to those

who will be watching. For instance, phrases like “This program was funded by

viewers like you” which is used by the American Public Broadcasting Service

(PBS) are used to reiterate that the public itself has a vested interest as they are

the ones funding PBS’s existence (Ashuri 47); just as the license in the United

Kingdom funds the BBC. Later in this paper, we see James Stephenson elaborate

more on the idea that general public desire must be appealed to in order to

appease the greater portion of a channel’s viewing public when producing

broadcasts.

This concept of appealing to an audience which gives a media source its

funding could in fact be one of the arguments raised by skeptical viewers as to

why certain imbalances may occur in reporting on certain issues. However, we

will later see that despite this influence by the public, institutions such as the BBC

which are relied upon by more than just British citizens, make the conscious

decision of striking a balance between reporting interesting stories as well as

informative and educational stories to the public. Even so, James Stephenson of

the BBC reassures those who question the BBC’s intentions that indeed they are

creating a product dependent on visual and audible assistance, but the BBC still

operates under its three fundamental rules to inform, to educate, and then to

8

entertain and, therefore, provide the viewing public with what they consider

relevant and timely information.

Another issue raised, specifically in Tamar Liebes’ Reporting the Arab

Israeli Conflict: How Hegemony Works, is that of “our” versus “their” war.

Stepping away momentarily from a British perspective, Liebes, of Israel, points

out that American coverage is one that may not be completely balanced with

regard to the Israeli perspective despite its close ties. She points out that like any

country conflict is reported on as “their” war. “In spite of the generally friendly

relationship between the United States and Israel, and the partisan American

Jewish constituency hungry for news of the conflict, the intifida on American

television took its place alongside a number of seething conflicts in other parts of

the world” (Liebes 68).

This concept of “our” issue and “their” issue is one which lies with each

media organization around the world regardless of nation or continent. When a

major event “hits closer to home” so to speak, the viewing/listening/reading

public reacts and pays attention differently and with this reality comes the

reaction of those gathering and broadcasting news to get the prominent news the

public is interested in to them. Therefore, if in a news broadcast only seven to

eight major stories can be told, by fundamental production practices, stories of

most interest to the general viewing public (and it is important to specify it as

general or at most a ‘majority’ and not the viewing public as a whole) have pride

of place. This leaves others who may have wanted to hear about a specific subject

or about what was going on in a different area than what the majority wanted to

9

hear about feeling as though a gap or void has been left in that news broadcaster’s

airtime. As a reaction, that group can justifiably make claims that the Media is not

reporting on everything that is happening; however, at the same time, how is a

news source expected to do so when those variables of time constraints, general

public interest, etc. call for otherwise?

Even Liebes points out that when it comes down to it, television coverage,

no matter the country, may tend to reflect already established attitudes of the

societies in those countries. She also carefully spends much of her sixth chapter

entitled “Us and Them” validating her point further and painting a picture for us

by showing an unequal balance of airtime that tends to exist between those pieces

of news deemed as “us” events have over those specified more so as “them”

events.

On the other hand, from a Palestinian perspective of media, we read in

Amal Jamal’s Media Politics and Democracy in Palestine of the more

complicated relationship that exists between that half of the conflict’s government

and the Media. Indeed, this paper examines the way outside news sources’ report

on the conflict; however, it is by looking at the way in which the Palestinian and

Israeli governments go about working with their own medias that gives us a better

perspective on how it is our Western media coverage is in essence affected by

those internal relationships.

Jamal points out to the reader something that later comes up in my

interview with Roger Hardy regarding the Palestinian perspective: that the

existence of a public Palestinian voice to the rest of the world has not always been

10

a strong one. Internally, media has played a large part in Palestinian politics and

organizing, but internationally speaking it has not really been a global player. This

is a reason some claim its voice had gone unheard for many years.

In the period of Israeli settlement and expansion discussed in a later

section, especially after 1967, Palestinians began the process of developing its

media into a much stronger institution under the Palestinian Liberation

Organization. With the help of fellow Arab nations, they launched their very own

radio broadcasting network, and then began a run of different newspapers which

were distributed in Israeli occupied territories. Finally, in the period of the Oslo

accords, in the early 1990s, a the shift from the Palestinian Liberation

Organization to the Palestinian Authority meant further growth in media

technology and power and in a matter of a few years, opinion polls showed that

almost half of the Palestinian population polled trusted in Palestinian radio

broadcasts (Jamal 78)2.

This new media driven power gave Palestine at least a somewhat greater

ability to get its voice heard by those who had previously not noticed it and,

therefore, what some might view as a closer balance in media coverage. Of

course, the issues of rising violence and turmoil in the Gaza Strip and surrounding

areas have resurfaced numerous times causing international news sources to

repeatedly question placement of correspondents and journalists, but great strides

have admittedly been made for Palestine’s voice in the past sixty years.

2 In even more recent years, additional changes are occurring as new social media

further proliferates a pro-Palestinian perspective.

11

However, in addition to the developments that had been made in

Palestinian media and getting its voice heard globally, numerous events have

again thrown them repeatedly back into the dark multiple times. Whether it was

the Arab defeat in the war with Israel in 1967 or the following 1970s era of state

controlled broadcasting these resurgences of poor media coverage have kept

external, international news sources clambering to place a firm footing in

reporting from and about Palestine, and for that matter political and academic

international institutions well informed about what is happening (Rugh 91).

Because of these setbacks however, the public continues to get mixed messages

from cooperative Israel and unstable Palestine.

We are, therefore, presented with a few of the numerous obstacles which

media institutions must constantly overcome in order to work toward being as

impartial and balanced as they can be. These include: The fundamental nature of

news broadcasters being creators of television shows which must appeal topically

and aesthetically to viewers while still maintaining a foundation of information

and education, the natural division that exists between the culture in which they

are broadcasting to and the culture they are broadcasting about and overcoming

that divergence, and lastly the ongoing instability of the Middle-Eastern region

which continuously changes the dynamics of the governments, news sources and

societies of all involved.

12

A BBC Timeline:

It is important for the reader to now have a basic knowledge of the BBC’s

history so one understands that it was founded and has been run based on a

foundation of impartiality and information for the benefit of the listener, viewer or

reader. Both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Conflict between

Modern Day Israel and Palestine each have long histories, the BBC’s goes back

decades while the Middle Eastern Conflict goes back centuries upon centuries. In

1926-7, the British Broadcasting Corporation was formed out of the former

British Broadcasting Company with John Rieth as its first General Manager.

Reith was the son of a Protestant Minister giving him a strong moral code, he was

also educated in Scotland, and he was a survivor of World War II. It is important

to note Reith’s religious background because as Professor Christopher Cook

explains, “He is the architect not only of BBC and its values, but of what we

know as public service broadcasting itself”.

Reith would later become the Chairman of the BBC and reshape the

company itself. He preferred a strongly structured and thoroughly organized

model of running the BBC and put in place ‘controllers’ in positions of power and

organization. As part of the BBC’s modern mission statement, we find the three

words which Reith used to explain its purpose: inform, educate, and entertain.

His main objectives during his years of power were to fully establish and further

develop the BBC as a broadcasting organization. Within the first year of Reith’s

13

appointment, “The first plays, concerts, charity appeals, debates, variety shows,

weather forecasts, SOS messages, women’s talks, dance band broadcasts,

symphony concerts and religious talks had all been heard by those people who

had access to receivers” (Cain 13).

Reith remained part of the BBC until 1938, just shortly after the 1936 birth

year of the television broadcasting at the BBC, when he then moved on to other

positions such as Chairman of Imperial Airways, Minister of Information in

Neville Chamberlain’s government, and Chairman of the Commonwealth

Telecommunications Board. Sadly, although Reith had thought he was moving

onto bigger things leaving the BBC, he would later reveal that he felt he was

never ‘stretched’ to his full potential. He claimed that many of the government

appointments that he held later, many made by Churchill who was known to not

be one of Reith’s main supporters, did not satisfy his needs or utilize his various

strengths. This situation from over seventy years ago is representational of the

tense relationship that has existed at times between the BBC and government

officials and into the present day disputes that exist between the two.

Television service was short-lived as wartime postponed broadcasting for

a number of years. “With the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939 the

service came to an abrupt end” (Crisell 79). During this time, radio broadcasting

continued, although at times haphazardly, and radio programming continued to

spread. When the television service came back up and running in 1946, it reached

about 15,000 households. This number grew as a new license fee was created

which combined radio and television into one price of £2.

14

Despite the protests of many traditionalists and others in the live-

performance fields, such as the theatre, BBC broadcasting continued to grow and

spread throughout Britain and eventually led to other broadcasters such as ITV to

enter the field. It was this appearance of competitors, along with new government

policies that came into existence, which broke the longstanding monopoly the

BBC had held on broadcasting. However, a major surge in television viewing

occurred, attributed to the June 1953 broadcast of Queen Elizabeth II’s

coronation; it was between 1951 and 1954 that the number of people with

combined radio-television licenses doubled.

A large cornerstone for the BBC then occurred in 1955 when the number

of television viewers first exceeded the number of radio listeners. By 1958, 9

million licenses were held; up from the 2.5 million radio licenses held in 1926.

Although this number makes it seem as though the BBC was in a state of strength,

the number of licenses did not translate into the number of people watching the

BBC as ITV existed at the time as well. “By August 1958, 80% of the population

could receive ITV and the BBC’s share of the audience had dropped. The lowest

point was reached at the end of 1957 when, according to BBC estimates, the

Corporation’s share of the audience capable of receiving both television channels

was only 28%” (Cain 77).

In the 1960s, the BBC then experienced two major events which it

benefited from as an organization. The first was in 1960 when the BBC opened

the famous Television Centre in Shepherd’s Bush which opened a new era in the

shows that BBC created. It is in the Television Centre that much of the BBC’s

15

national and international broadcasting originates. The opening of the Centre

meant a definite growth and development in the output of BBC broadcasting. The

second event came in 1964 when BBC Two, BBC’s second television station, was

launched. After a period of petitioning the government to allow them to create a

channel for color television, they were finally granted the right. It was with the

BBC having two channels that they finally saw a hold of 49% of television

viewers.

This increase prompted the newer ITV to once again work to add a station

to balance what people were watching. After numerous talks and changes in

plans, the idea for Channel 4 as a publishing channel was finally decided on.

Channel 4 actually did not create any of its own shows, but rather allowed others

to create shows and have them broadcast on the station. These developments in

competition for the BBC are vital to point out to the reader when considering the

reasons the BBC does some of the things it does. Competition with commercial

stations reorganized the way BBC had to attract and keep viewers as well as

changing what type of programs they put on television. In addition, to these two

developments in broadcasting, the 1960s were faced with numerous pirate radio

stations that broadcasted outside of legal parameters. In answer to this, in 1967,

the BBC launched Radio 1 and further reorganized its other stations into Radios 2,

3 and 4. This strong restructuring for the BBC was just one other way in which it

reaffirmed its place in British broadcasting.

It was in the 70s and 80s which BBC received some of its first major

criticism on its reporting, originally from the government itself. During the

16

Falklands War, for example, it was Margaret Thatcher’s government which

complained that the BBC was presenting too strongly the Argentinian point of

view and not being balanced in its news. Later in the 1980s, during the miner’s

strike, the BBC once again came under fire by the political left for being biased in

its reporting of the events which were unfolding. It was during this period into

the 1980s which more and more public criticism began to occur and organizations

and interest groups began to get involved in the process. Growing public interest

and criticism from the British public at large meant the BBC had to begin

answering to a much larger number of people instead of only the government who

was originally the power, which strongly voiced its opinion and influence.

Despite many of its troubles in the 1970s and 80s with public and private

criticism, the BBC saw a strong degree of growth at the end of the 80s and into

the 90s with certain expansions to their broadcasting. A clear explanation of this

change reads:

The years from 1987 to 1992 witnessed the most radical changes

ever seen in broadcasting in the United Kingdom. To a very large

extent, these reflected worldwide events, as well as Government

policies. Almost everywhere in the developed world, commercial

broadcasting through cable, satellite and terrestrial channels

flourished while public sector broadcasting went on the defensive.

The BBC, generally recognized to be the biggest and most

successful example of the latter, could not alone expect to escape

major changes. Under its new management it resolved to welcome

17

the new climate and to strengthen it position in every possible way,

competing with what were to be an increasing number of

operators at home and abroad (Cain 133).

In 1988, the External Services that had formerly encompassed the

international services of the BBC, was reorganized and renamed under BBC

World Service. In addition to this, in the 1990s, a BBC world television service

was added as a companion to its radio counterpart. The BBC further launched a

new radio station, Radio 5, which covered the news and sports of the times. In the

mid-90s, the BBC also launched into the realm of online news with the launching

of BBC online.

By the turn of the century, BBC was broadcasting to larger numbers of

viewers, had new programs in both News and general television, and was

adapting to new technology and advancements in broadcasting. This sort of

power and stronghold in information distribution that BBC had developed was

also one of the major reasons many are skeptical of what it broadcasts and how it

goes about doing it. Although competition has meant a certain amount of balance

in the British broadcasting world, the BBC still holds a major portion of

broadcasting power both nationally and internationally. Therefore, with issues

like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the public and indeed the government of its

base country must admittedly hold the large media power to the highest of

standards if it is in fact going to be the organization which brings those

throughout the world much of their news on the subject.

18

As a result, when those on both sides of the conflict and those consuming

news began to question the BBC’s reporting, it was only right for a move to be

made to look into the serious accusations made against it. Therefore, with the

agreement of the government, in 2004 Malcolm Balen was commissioned by

former BBC Director of News Richard Sambrook to look into the allegations.

At the end of his research into the matter, Balen, as mentioned before, wrote his

findings in what became known as the Balen Report. Further turmoil then sprang

up when the BBC refused to release the document and continues to this day.

For the past seven years the issue has been taken through the High Courts

of the United Kingdom; activists groups demanding it is the public’s right to see

the document, and the BBC answering back with statements of the document

being an internal document. After multiple appeals by the said activist groups to

an Information Tribunal and answering appeals made by the BBC to the High

Courts to overturn the Tribunal’s decisions, the document remains the private

property of the BBC and has yet to be released to any public organization.

19

Introductory thoughts with Roger Hardy: BBC World3

My interviews at the BBC itself started with Roger Hardy in the offices of

Bush House, and these talks gave me a basic understanding of how reporting

tends to go on within the walls of the BBC. Hardy, who has been a journalist

since the 1970s, came to work for the BBC in 1985 and has acted as a Middle

Eastern and Islamic affairs analyst since that time, becoming a major figure and

reference to others at the BBC. As a person who has spent years in media and

worked for other news sources as well as the BBC, Hardy has developed an in

depth knowledge of how the corporation operates and made some very interesting

statements when we first met that I will express in this section, and that I actually

came to hear later on in other interviews from others at the BBC. We first started

talking about his personal career and how he saw the growth of the BBC in his

time working for the company.

With regards to the means in which the BBC reports, we discussed that

with the dawn of new technology and media growth in past years, the BBC has

come into faster and more efficient ways of getting News to the world at large.

This, however, did not mean that everything about reporting had become better

overall. With the speed of the News world as it is, one notices that facts and

figures are not always 100 percent correct when it comes time to report.

Although a reporter, correspondent and/or editor does everything in his or her

3 "Interview with Roger." Personal interview. Bush House, London. 14 Oct. 2009.

20

power to ensure validity, a spectrum of human error is to be expected. It is drawn

down to the fact that no person is perfect and sometimes things can be

overlooked, forgotten, or accidentally altered by a reporter.

These observations are also later made by other interviewees such as

James Stephenson of the Six and Ten O’clock News and even Sharif Nashashibi

of Arab Media Watch. It is in the BBC’s sole purpose, however, to do everything

in its power to get things right, and if mistakes are made, they do what they can to

rectify it. As a consumer of news, one must worry however when they come

realize that those broadcasting the news are aware of faults that occur and the

answer to concerns about this are equivalent to “We will try our best to fix things

when information is wrong”.

In Hardy’s time at the BBC he has noticed that one internal policy has

stayed constant though in day-to-day processes, he says, “The basics of fairness

and impartiality have remained the same. These are unwritten rules that have

gone unchanged at the BBC”. It is this statement that seems to underlie many

BBC employees’ opinions of the work that the BBC does. Despite the efforts of

how the BBC reports, Hardy also pointed out that with time, the context within

which stories are reported has changed in two ways.

The first, as briefly mentioned earlier, is the technical part of the media

and the development of New Media. For all intents and purposes, Hardy feels

that the New Media should not affect the basics of reporting that were explained

before. However, in reality, it does. As more and more people are able to get the

news service, as the internet has grown more popular and more developed, and as

21

the public have wanted a larger say in media coverage, people are now able, more

than ever, to scrutinize the BBC and express their opinions at large. This change

undoubtedly means that the degree and intensity of scrutiny on reporters and

editors has changed drastically overtime, altering the very atmosphere of the

media world.

Secondly, Hardy has described a change in public opinion on politics and

society in the past fifty years in Britain. He says that in his opinion, the American

people think that the BBC is or has always been pro-Palestinian, but they are

wrong in this assumption. This, however is a personal observation that I believe

Hardy made, as there is no concrete evidence that the majority of Americans feel

this way. He explains that around the time of the birth of Israel, between 1948 and

1967, the European perception tended to be pro-Israel. He bases this in the idea

that Europe was able to relate to the Israeli people as they were sympathetic from

the Holocaust having happened not so far in the past. On the other hand, at that

time, the Palestinian point of view was fairly absent, went unnoticed and therefore

influenced very few.

It was the Siege of Beirut in 1982, followed by the aftermath into the late

1980s, which brought about the sense that the Palestinians were the underdogs

living under occupation. This, Hardy says, was the true swing in opinion. The

swing, however, was not from pro-Palestine to anti-Israel, but rather to be more

critical of Israeli policy than they had been in the past and to be more open to the

perspective of Palestinians. Hardy says that it is usually overlooked that, “The

idea of having two separate states was supported in Europe long before the

22

Clinton or Bush Administrations.” It was as time went on in the conflict that

opinions grew much more polarized than they had ever been before.

This issue with the relationship between the media and the public, which

Hardy brought up is the question of which is the cart and which is the horse? Is it

the public that tends to guide the media in what they put on the air and how they

go about doing it, or is it the Media which bends public opinion and shows them

how to think about a certain topic or event? Hardy expresses that is a widely held

belief that The Guardian, as one example, is pro-Israel in today’s world and not

only today, but actually for much of its existence in the print world. He says that

they have taken the stance that they report in this way because they feel that the

British public can more easily relate to the people of Israel. This is something he

says the BBC could never claim as an impartial broadcaster. The BBC, standing

on principles of unbiased and nonpartisan reporting, would not ever make a claim

like The Guardian’s.

In the political/economic sphere, Britain also had a lot at stake in doing

business with Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. This is clearly a strong

juxtaposition with the relationship that Western nations have with Israel,

politically. For example, although during Margaret Thatcher’s government she

may have been pro-Jewish in her opinions, foreign policy had already been set at

the time and was fairly strongly followed. It was during the period of the BBC-

Blair relationship that one can find the serious crisis. Hardy explained that, “It

was revealed that while every government, Labour or Conservative, wants to

23

promote BBC’s independence in reporting, they do still want to control the

reporting in some sense.”

What it comes down to with such a large organization like the BBC is to

ensure that from those who make the decisions at the top, to the correspondents in

the field, to the employee sitting in Television Centre, BBC aims for impartiality.

Without being recognized for impartiality, their credibility is completely lost.

I asked Hardy how this related to the literal act of choosing and writing

about an event. He said, when it came down to it, a genuine reporter must do

their job, “without fear or favor.” Simply, one should never drop or alter a story

out of fear of angering or upsetting someone else as well as never picking up or

altering a story to win favor with another person. He explained that when an

event happens, there is going to be some expense related to reporting on it; there

is no way to please everyone in the world of journalism. Someone will always be

upset by a story written, from a person sitting at home reading the newspaper to

the governments of foreign nations.

Hardy ended our talk with one last thought on the task that is presented to

every person working in the field of journalism, not only the BBC. In my opinion

I felt as though he was being quite idealistic, but in reality he is the one with over

25 years of experience in the field while I am the outsider looking in. He said that

after getting past the worries of upsetting someone and past the initial desire to

please people, the journalist, at the end of the day, must continually examine their

own actions and decisions; just like anyone else. In a field where people are being

informed and educated on the events of the world, a journalist must always be fair

24

and impartial in their reporting. “Fairness and impartiality should not work like a

tap that one can simply turn on and off when they so choose.”

25

Malcolm Balen: The Middle East Policeman:4

To speak with the “Policeman of the Middle East” Malcolm Balen was a

rare opportunity and a vital one when examining the ways in which BBC manages

its reporting. As mentioned in the BBC timeline, Malcolm Balen was

commissioned to fully examine and advise on BBC’s reporting of the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict at the time and to write a report on his findings which would

assist the BBC in fixing any flaws that existed in their broadcasting. Balen

continues as an overseer today and this made him a very compelling person to

speak with. After a kind introduction from Roger Hardy who had accompanied

me to Balen’s office, we sat down to have a very enlightening conversation about

Balen’s position and his opinions on what had transpired regarding the

accusations against the BBC. Balen was a very laid back person with a lot of

intriguing thoughts on the issue of criticizing the BBC for being biased in its

reporting on Israel and Palestine and shared a few with me.

Balen first described to me why it was that he was the one to fill the job of

overseer. He told me that when the BBC was looking for someone to take on the

task, they needed someone who had a knowledge of media, but was, for all intents

and purposes, separated from the day to day workings of the news world. This

gave the person the knowledge of what should be happening without being

hindered by other influences. Balen said that he fully understood how there could

be, at times, accidents made in reporting. With news segments, for example,

4

"Interview with Malcolm Balen." Personal interview. White City, London. 14

Oct. 2009.

26

Balen said, “Editors are bogged down by running their own show. It can be hard

at times to see if there is something particular missing. I, on the other hand, have

the time to do that.” However, it is in fact the job of that editor sees what is

missing and what there is too much of in a broadcast; so it seemed as though

Balen was relieving particular employees of their duties or at least preemptively

pardoning them for their mistakes. In addition, as shown later in this paper, this

issue of missing facts is a major complaint made by the public and is a

fundamental problem people like Sharif Nashashibi have with the BBC.

We further spoke about the turning point in the history of the news world

when the age of criticism and close analysis by the public came about. He

described the explosion that has occurred in past decades which has altered the

way news is addressed. “Before this explosion in different Media, there may have

been four corrections pointed out in a news segment. Now, its quite possible that

there may be one hundred corrections that could be made to something.” After the

1970s, Balen said that the BBC was stuck in the old structure of how things

worked, and they had not adjusted to the new realm of broadcasting; this caused a

lot of problems for it. “It just wasn’t meeting the output that it needed as such a

large institution. It needed to make some necessary adjustments.” The period

after this coincides with the time of BBC development described in the earlier

timeline. The BBC reshaped much of its infrastructure at this time and developed

more direction on how it reported. It continued to do this for a number of years

after that and still works to adapt to the world around it today.

27

On the topic of complaints, Balen explained that there were four major

reasons that public criticism had vastly increased, along with being in the age

technology. Firstly, the simple fact that people are now able to find contact

information on those working in the News. Unlike the past, when it was more

difficult for people to track down direct contact information of employees, people

now can fairly easily figure out the email address of a person or manage to find

the number of the person’s desk phone.

Secondly, people’s respect for institutions as a whole has been in decline

for a number of years. No longer will people simply sit at home and ponder what

people and decision makers are doing in the offices of different institutions as

they may have done in the past. The “trust in the powers that be” principle does

not apply to society at large anymore, least of all when it comes to information

institutions like broadcasters.

Thirdly, Balen presented the idea that as the number of events as a whole

in the world have gone up, so has the reporting on them as well as the number of

sources to gather information through. Therefore, an increase in reporting means

there is more for the public to critique overall. As events around the world

continue to unravel and develop further, the effects they have continue to multiply

and cause numerous other events to occur. This is what I think Balen meant by

events as a whole in the world have gone up. This observation is one that would

be harder to argue against. Quite literally, as news broadcasters have increased

the span of what stories and events they report on, the number of criticisms and

messages to the institutions has grown as well.

28

Lastly, and most importantly, is the fact that the cost of the license fee to

British citizens means that the BBC is public property. This is something that

more and more Britons have come to realize and hold onto as each year passes.

Although always aware that their money was going to keep the BBC’s running,

the realization that there is power behind that fact is something that has continued

to spread over time in the public. It is the combination of these four factors, in

Balen’s opinion, that criticism by the public has increased more and more into the

technological age.

Then to this issue of who it is running the news world, Balen gave his

thoughts on the matter. “In today’s world, television reporting is being run by the

younger generation. With the new technology that is out there, that’s just the way

it is.” In the same thought, however, he expressed a major issue that occurs with

this reality. “With issues like the Middle East, which have gone on for decades,

the younger generation has a different frame of reference. For many of them, they

can only remember as far back as the 80s and 90s period of the conflict and that

just is not enough for this type of subject matter.” He then conveyed the dilemma

that exists in the media today for issues like this. He said that with the Middle

East, along with many other long-lasting events, it is easy to forget the full

history. Some people begin referencing a few years in the past when they can

really be looking at events that occurred decades beforehand. It is in this fact that

many problems and new issues can occur when reporting on the event.

I then of course wanted to know what his relationship was like with those

who wrote the stories and were actually in the field. Balen explained to me that it

29

was rare for him to actually directly intervene in the jobs of the correspondents

and writers. He wanted to make it clear that when it came down to gathering

information and sending it to the BBC, reporters know the more detailed on-

goings of day to day journalism and its is not his place to impede that. His job is

to react to what he sees, hears, and reads on the different means of news and not

to get involved before hand. He is an adjuster, or at most a corrector, not a

preventer.

An example he gave of stepping in and giving his opinion on an issue is

one of the latest periods of unrest in Gaza. As reports were coming out to the

public, Balen was realizing that they were doing very well giving the Israeli

perspective on what was occurring, but were a bit too locked into giving that

outlook. He felt that they were failing to provide the particular reasons for

Hamas’ actions in this particular period of disquiet and that this was a necessary

part of the story for the public to know. Upon seeing this, he pointed it out to

James Stephenson at the Jerusalem Bureau who was the current correspondent at

the time. Balen told me that he was pleased to see that within a short time of his

observation, they had corrected the issue and had released an informative story

that explained Hamas’ side of the event.

Overall, he told me that BBC works under the assumption that its

correspondents and employees are competent, informed, and prepared; similar to

the way Roger Hardy and later James Stephenson describe. Therefore, when it

comes to examining the news that comes from the different world posts, “a

correspondent should have enough knowledge and experience to make a proper

30

judgment call on how and what they report.” In the case of correspondents, they

are in high regard with a lot of faith and trust placed in them. With a number of

complaints coming in regarding particular stories from the public and numerous

activist groups, I wondered how then the News presenters themselves were

regarded when it came to complaints made; if having anything to do with it at all.

Balen’s response? “News presenters are paid to know a little about everything

and a lot about nothing.” He explained that in the end, it was not the people

behind the desk that had much to do with the content that was chosen for the

audience. They are simply vehicles for the information and that is the major

component of their job. If people complain about them, it is more likely that it

will be about how they were dressed or the tone with which they were discussing

something.

Lastly, and quite importantly, we discussed the Balen Report, which there

has been so much speculation over. When I first brought it up, Balen almost

seemed to treat the subject as an overly discussed topic. He truly gave the

impression that he did not understand why so many people had caused such an

uproar regarding its contents. “I was hired for a job which dealt with internal

matters. I looked into it, I made my report, and now it is in the hands of the

people it should be.”

I then asked why the BBC could not simply release the information to the

public when they demanded it and after repeating the fact that it was an internal

issue he continued to explain, “The BBC doesn’t release the report because of the

gray area in the Freedom of Information Act. It is not at all that the BBC does not

31

want that specific information released. Simply, losing that particular case would

set a precedent and open a flood gate of the public wanting to read all internal

BBC documents.” I asked what he thought about the unrest of the public in the

answers that the BBC was giving regarding the report. “Really, it doesn’t matter if

people like or don’t like what the BBC says, but rather that the BBC has looked at

the issue raised and has a logic to why and how they say things in the news.”

Balen then elaborated on who it was that should have the report in-hand

by saying that his reports go to the Content Board, or the Journalism Board, which

is run by the Deputy Director at the BBC, and it is there that his reports are

reviewed and examined. To another degree, he said that the Trust will also look

into the journalism and the reports written about it. In the end, after looking at the

information he presented and continues to present, “The BBC must follow its

charter that was set so many years ago. Impartiality is truly what lies at the heart

of what the BBC does, but it does not mean that in the end, people don’t make

mistakes.”

32

James Stephenson: Editor of the 6 and 10:5

James Stephenson was a fantastic person to meet, having previously been

the BBC correspondent in Jerusalem and currently working as the Editor of the

Six and Ten O’clock News. Stephenson is, therefore, a person who has seen the

world of media from many angles: as a home viewer, a person in the middle of

the action, and now a person who decides what the public sees. As a result, he

was an ideal person to speak with on the matter of bias and how the BBC

operates.

It is from my conversation with Stephenson that I found the most

straightforward and eye opening answers. Stephenson was not afraid to explain

how things really worked at the BBC and was instead actually fairly eager to clear

the air. When we first sat down, and I thanked him for his time, he quickly

thanked me as well. He said that with all of the questions and concerns that float

around regarding the BBC, it is always a great opportunity to sit down with

someone and clarify the situation as well as get their opinion on the matter.

Speaking directly with people about the world of reporting is something they

cannot easily do at times, and he enjoyed the fact that he had the opportunity.

Having recently met with Malcolm Balen, he was fresh on my mind, and it

was with his name that we fully started our conversation. After learning what it

was that Balen was supposed to be doing, I asked Stephenson about their

relationship while he was reporting from Jerusalem. He told me that, in reality,

5 "Interview with James Stephenson." Personal interview. White City. London.

11 Nov. 2009.

33

he and Balen were not in constant communication like some may think. Instead,

at the end of every three-month period, he would write a report for a review board

and Balen to read through. After each of these reports, Stephenson was given

suggestions and information on what else needed to be done in the future as well

as what perhaps could have been done instead of what occurred. The degree of

communication between them and the sum of recommendations made changed

depending on the time of reporting. At times of the year, when many events had

occurred in succession and the number of reports was high, they would of course

be in more communication. Stephenson did then explain that at other times, in the

down periods of the conflict, reports and recommendations were much thinner

than usual.

Stephenson was definitely of the opinion that Balen was an important

colleague to have in overseeing their work and talking with them further about it.

He told me, “Malcolm Balen is beneficial to us because he has a certain

detachment from what we do. He’s not drawn into how it is the stories run. I have

respect for his role and what he does for the BBC.” He explained that if it had

been a different type of person that was placed in the position, the strides that they

had made thus far would not have been as strong. Balen’s experience,

background, and current relationship with the BBC at the time of his appointment,

made him the ideal candidate for the job.

When we turned to the subject of the public’s criticism, Stephenson

became even more engaged in the conversation. My first question to him was

whether or not he felt the people’s accusations were well grounded at times. He

34

responded, “To be honest, people’s personal perspectives on the issue at large

have created some of those accusations they have made against the BBC. Not to

say that BBC reporting is perfect; no reporting is perfect. The thing is, finding

particular ‘mistakes’ in the reporting, is all in the eye of the beholder.” When the

stakes are higher in the middle of a conflict, the voices and opinions of people on

both sides greatly increases as well.

Part of the problem that lies at the heart of reporting, Stephenson believes,

is that watching any story on television creates a sort of unreality for the viewer.

As informed or even moved that a person is upon hearing or viewing a news

story, they are still essentially disconnected from the event itself. There is no way

they can truly understand what is happening without seeing it with their own eyes,

and this can create confusion when they watch the news. Stephenson explained

that as a correspondent he saw many things that he thought he had previously seen

and understood. Once in the midst of everything occurring, he realized the

difference between sitting at home and viewing events around the world and

actually being there as they happen. This disconnect between event and viewer

adds to the reasons some people complain about BBC coverage. They do not

realize that what they think or expect is happening may be different than what

they will have to watch on the News at the end of the day.

A specific instance that I was able to discuss with Stephenson was the

period of time in which Israel refused access to the media into conflict areas. At

the time, major destruction was occurring and the conflict was in one of its most

heightened points. Not long after this began, Israel started to deny reporters

35

access. Stephenson informed me that Israel told them they were denying them

access because they felt they would “get in the way” and “only complicate things

further.” I wondered what kind of effect this decision had on the public at large

and specifically Israel’s relationship with the Media. Stephenson’s answer was a

direct one which he felt very strongly about. “Israel not allowing the Media into

key areas and denying us information truly hurt its reputation in the conflict.

People undoubtedly began to question Israel’s claim of being a ‘free state’.”

In relation to this, one can read in Tamar Liebes’ work that the difficult

concept of media censorship that exists in the Israeli state is much different than

our own Western concept. For example, the idea of aiming to stay true to the

Zionist endeavor is strongly expressed and held important by the Israeli

government and supposedly journalists alike and, therefore, an acceptance of a

need for a certain degree of censorship when it comes to the conflict seems to

have worked (31). Though, for external spectators, this only reinforces the

skepticism that we do not receive all of the news of what is occurring. At the

same time, this observation may also lighten the blame from the BBC in having

flaws in its coverage by pointing out that the media remains reliant upon the

amount of slack in which a particular government or nature gives it. If one region

is too hostile to report from and the other allows access under the pretense that the

news source should not shed negative light on it or cause unrest based on what it

reports, how is that news source able to get the right information out to viewers?

The issue of Israel having a rather jarring relationship with the media and

allowing it access to report on current events still continues today. As recently as

36

June of 2010, Israel ran into criticism when videos were released of a

confrontation between Israeli commandos and an activist group’s vessel named

the Freedom Flotilla. Both vessels carried passengers equipped with cameras and

broadcasting equipment, and this is the circumstance that created such confusion

for the public. The Israeli vessel had cameras on board which captured the

skirmish and was able to broadcast their footage following the event, but the

Flotilla was fortunate to be carrying equipment linked to satellites and, therefore,

broadcasts images and videos as the struggle unfolded.

The confusion that came about was due to the fact that the Israeli

broadcasts of the conflict did not fit into the context of what people had seen

earlier and made it very difficult for viewers to figure out at what stage of the

attack the Israeli videos were set at. Clips of Israeli soldiers arming themselves

and warning the other vessel to make port peacefully are followed by clips of

what Israel claimed were its soldiers attacking the other vessel in self-defense.

The activists on the other ship, however, reported that the Israelis fired stun

grenades and tear gas onto their vessel without provocation that badly injured its

passengers.

In addition to this, the report by Brian Stelter of The New York Times

reported that, “at least 15 journalists who were aboard the flotilla had been

detained by Israel and had not made contact with their respective news outlets.

Among them were journalists from the Kuwait News Agency, The Sydney

Morning Herald and Al Jazeera” (Stelter). In addition to this, the Israeli military

had attempted to jam signals and stop cell phone transmissions from the vessel,

37

but could not stop the satellite transmissions which the Flotilla was able to send

out. With events like this showing Israel’s efforts of obstructing media coverage,

the international community, as stated, will further question Israel’s policies.

The next thing that Stephenson told me was what I think impressed me

most about the process of reporting at the BBC. Given that Stephenson had been

both in the field and in the decision making seat, I wanted to know one main

thing: “Do stories and the information provided by correspondents in different

countries, remain intact from what they send from their post to what the viewer at

home sees at Six and Ten O’clock?” His response? “In my experience, yes. At

the BBC there is a certain amount of faith placed in people in the field and with

that comes a level of autonomy. I would have my stories that I would send from

my post, and that would be the story that would make it to the viewers at home.

No adjustments or alterations are made between when correspondents send things

and when they are broadcast.”

He pointed out that this was quite different than the practices of

broadcasters in America, for instance. “In the United States, you have the policy

of script approval. Before a story is aired, there is a back and forth between

reporter and editor on what is right or wrong with a piece.” At the BBC they trust

that the correspondent has done what they needed to do and is providing them

with the accurate story. It is in this belief that they choose to not alter or adjust

stories before they go to the viewer.

Following this, I enquired about what stories ended up being chosen to

show and how they were chosen to begin with. Stephenson’s answer to this was

38

also something I greatly respected and I did not feel as though I was being given

the answer from a politician sort. Although it was somewhat difficult to wrap my

mind around, it was the fact that I was given an honest answer that I found the

answer to be the appropriate one:

Take the Ten O’clock news, for example. In that segment there are

seven to eight stories which will air. Keeping in mind that there

may have been many more interesting stories that we received. The

truth of the matter is that some are just left out. In the end its about

putting a show, a television show, together which people will

watch at home. Like any other show, there is very limited time

and space to report during these segments.

Personally, it was a bit shocking to hear that particular stories must be entirely left

out of a news broadcast, but upon further reflection I realized that what

Stephenson explained is a basic, but valid point. For a person to take in a larger

number of news stories, they will have to rely on the 24-hour news cycles and not

simply the two main broadcasts of the evening. When it comes down to it, there is

only so much time allotted for a broadcast, and they must prioritize what to air.

Stephenson told me that with BBC 1, “being a flagship channel, there is a

requirement and weight on me to appeal to a very general audience. The BBC

wants license fee payers to watch.” The issue of imagery is obviously a major part

of the media world. Andrew Crisell elaborates on this factor in An Introductory

History of British Broadcasting saying:

39

Though their full meaning is seldom apparent without the help of

words, it seems fair to say that on the whole pictures have a more

powerful, immediate and emotional effect than words alone. They

seem to be a direct expression of reality, whereas words - a human

invention - interpose themselves between reality and us, perhaps

filtering or even distorting the former. Pictures show; words

merely represent, and have to be ‘decoded’ by their audience - a

process which itself dissipates the emotional force of what they

convey (Crisell 155).

To this end I asked Stephenson what sort of influence stories with images played

on being chosen for broadcast. “There is no doubt a story with visuals, or even

audio, will run. You go with the pictures. Sometimes people making the show

don’t like that, but you just can’t get around it.” He said in the recent events of

the tsunami and earthquakes in Samoa, they had to make tough decisions between

choosing stories that came in with visuals that were perhaps less interesting and

stories that were more interesting, but had nothing to accompany them.

This part of our interview relates back to the issue raised by the creation of

the documentary The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs examined earlier.

When speaking with the Producer of the UK version, Norma Percy, she expresses

that same interest in creating an experience for the viewer so they can relate to it

and make “dry concepts come alive for the viewers” (Ashuri 15). In her

40

description of the process of creating a body of work which the public can relate

to, be interested in, and learn from, we get a similar message that it will be

through personal videos, interviews and other images that the viewer will take

interest while learning something. On the other hand, James Stephenson did

express that at the end of the day, absolutely vital information, which the public

should not go without, whether or not it has images, will of course run. Despite

being in the business of creating a show, they are indeed there to inform the

public of the news that is most vital for them to know.

As a reaction to some of the things that the BBC has broadcast,

Stephenson said that along with providing the license fee payers a show to watch,

in return, the license fee payer has a sense of entitlement to complain when they

choose to. I asked Stephenson whether or not complaints were listened to and

addressed. He explained to me that the BBC would indeed listen to every

complaint they received. Sometimes changes will be made and sometimes they

will not.

With regards to where the complaints come from and whom they are

directed to, Stephenson said it is rare for him to be the one to receive a direct

complaint. If the BBC has received a specific and substantial complaint about

one of his shows than he is of course notified, but on a day to day basis he does

not see the complaints himself. In addition to the numerous, general

complaints from the public, most of the considerable complaints come from

highly funded and organized organizations. Stephenson told me this as I brought

up the name of Arab Media Watch. He told me that general viewers at home

41

would complain perhaps about the news anchors or a story in general, but it was

the organizations that came with researched and developed ideas on what was

wrong with a broadcast. In addition to this, it was Balen who was in contact with

these groups and took care of their complaints to the BBC; Stephenson was

detached from this part of the process.

Sharif Nashashibi: The View of Arab Media Watch:

It must first be pointed out, before going into great detail about my

interview with Mr. Nashashibi, that the atmosphere of this talk was unlike any

other. As I walked past Harrods towards 1 Ennismore Street, I was unsure of

where exactly I was headed. Walking down this street of private homes and

gardens I came upon 1 Ennismore and realized that instead of being directed to an

office building, Sharif Nashashibi, Chairman of Arab Media Watch, had invited

me to his father’s home to go through my questions. I entered the home and

walked in to find spectacular surroundings. The lounge which I was directed into

was filled with large mirrors and family portraits framed in golden frames,

couches were covered in fine silk, and beautiful wooden dressers were inlaid with

white pearl. It was quite unlike the offices which I had conducted my other

interviews in at BBC buildings and I describe the surroundings simply to give the

reader a better idea of the interesting environment I sat in as Nashashibi

explained to me the different things flawed with BBC broadcasting and practices.

The moment we sat down, Nashashibi actually posed the first question to

me instead. “Shall we talk about Malcolm Balen now or later?” he said to me in a

42

quizzical manner. I found this interesting and went with the prompt by

Nashashibi to talk about Balen, someone I had planned to ask about much later

on. He then posed another question to me before I could ask him anything, “What

did you think of him?”

In my brief talks with Balen, explained earlier in the paper, I had indeed

left his office with a feeling of not getting the answers to a few of my questions;

specifically regarding the BBC’s argument against releasing his document.

Expressing this to Nashashibi he quickly interjected, “See, I knew you were going

to have that impression. Balen has a way of using a lot of words without actually

saying anything at all”. This followed by a small chuckle by Nashashibi at his

own observation. Upon hearing this, I inquired whether or not he thought Balen

had served any purpose at all in being hired as the ‘Policeman of the Middle

East’.

His answer, rather cryptic, was that overall he did not know. At first this

seemed confusing, as Nashashibi had just made a joke about Balen, but he further

explained that without being able to see the Balen Report, he really could not

make a judgment call on whether or not Balen had done his job. His frustration in

the fact that the Balen Report was not released to the public was quite evident

throughout the interview. At particular points during our conversation it always

reverted back to, “Well, if we could only see the report.”

Nashashibi stood firm in his belief that the report should be released to the

public under the Freedom for Information Act. “Something like the Balen Report,

which would answer a lot of critics’ questions is not something to withhold. The

43

BBC is only causing itself more distress by not releasing Balen’s findings.” In a

sense I could agree with him that holding this information created even more

questions and complaints from the public, but on the other hand it seems to me

that when it comes down to it, the report which the BBC asked for is their

property, free to do with it what they will. When I asked Nashashibi what he

thought of the idea that the report was something that examined internal matters at

the BBC and, therefore, did not have to be released, his answer was short and

simple. “The BBC is paid for and sustained by the public to whom they report.

The BBC should therefore be answerable to that very public and that means

giving them the answers to their questions when asked.”

Something Nashashibi did admit to, however, was that in the past decade

he had seen some fundamental changes in the way BBC reports. Although still

critical of what stories the BBC chooses to run, he does admit that some of the

tone and wording has been corrected in past years. “The BBC has started to

really look at word choice. Things like elaborate adjectives or wordy phrasing

have been replaced with more informational and purely factual words and

phrases.” This is a change that he does associate with Balen, as some of the

suggestions Balen has made seem to be better known by the public than others.

Towards the end of our conversation, we hit the main reason of why

Nashashibi was disappointed with BBC broadcasting. “The major issue is

location. Not having correspondents in Gaza and the West Bank is one of the

BBC’s biggest mistakes.” Nashashibi explained that in past years, when BBC had

correspondents who reported from more of the high action areas, it was more

44

closely balanced and much more credible. By having people write stories on

these areas without actually being there when the events happen, the BBC loses

credibility in certain people’s eyes.

Nashashibi had one final thought on the issue of correspondent placement;

he ended this part of the discussion with a single statement. “Not having

correspondents in key areas, in the heart of the trouble, means not getting the

whole story. It is an injustice to those killed from war as well as to the viewers at

home.”

What I found most interesting about my time with Nashashibi was the fact

that as we talked I had one thing on my mind I could not shake. Nashashibi

continued to elaborate on his issues with the BBC, and I continued to think, “If

the BBC is said to be so Pro-Palestinian, how is it that an organization like Arab

Media Watch has so many problems with it?” After speaking with him for a large

amount of time, I finally asked him this. As confused as I had been about this

issue, Nashashibi explained that they were asked about this quite often.

His answer to me was that despite popular opinion that the BBC was “on

the side of Palestine.” it was organizations like Arab Media Watch that took the

time to actually look at what the BBC was broadcasting on an analytical level and

hold it accountable for what they found. He said that many in the public sphere

hear that the BBC is biased and then turn on the television expecting this. As they

watch, they find the parts of the broadcasts which simply reaffirm what they

thought going into viewing the program. He said that many viewers just do not

take the time to look at the facts that would counter-argue their opinion. In this

45

respect, more people are under the impression that BBC reports in an unbalanced

manner too one side when really, the BBC is flawed in its reporting on both sides

Closing Thoughts:

No other international broadcaster puts in as much effort as the

BBC to reassure the public that it is a broadcaster of truth, with

slogans such as: Free and untainted information is a basic human

right. Not everyone has it but everyone wants it. It cannot by

itself create a just world, but a just world cannot exist without it

(Wood 39).

This brief statement, I feel, recapitulates what each of the people I spoke

with at the BBC tried to explain. For the past couple decades, the BBC has

battled endlessly with those in the public that continue to claim it reports in a

biased manner. My talks with Roger Hardy set up my first impression of the BBC

and how it operated in the News world. I was given the impression that in the

years that Hardy had worked there, BBC had stood firm in the policies and

principles that it had set out under Reith so many years before.

My discussion with Malcolm Balen reiterated some of those principles

that Hardy had pointed out, while also elaborating on the new practices that the

BBC had undertaken in recent years. Although at times I may have questioned

how forthcoming Balen was being with his answers, he provided me with a

mental map of what the BBC had laid out for him as the Policeman of the Middle

East. Based on the opinions of his colleagues, and even in some respects his

46

skeptics, I left with the impression that Balen was leaving a positive imprint on

the future outcome of BBC reporting.

It was my conversation after this, with James Stephenson, which left me

most satisfied with the answers given to me regarding the day to day operations of

the BBC. Stephenson made no excuses for the practices that the BBC had for

broadcasting the news and was upfront with all of the information he could give

to me. The media world is not a perfect one and Stephenson openly expressed

this during our conversation. For him, it was Stephenson and his colleagues‘ job

to present both the best and most informative News broadcast they could to the

public in the time they were given. His experience in and out of the field of

reporting, his straightforward answers, and his eagerness to clear the air of

confusion made Stephenson both a knowledgeable and credible source in my

eyes.

Lastly, to gain the outside perspective, I sat down with Sharif Nashashibi.

Although an interesting conversation, the open-ended answers and ambiguity of

Nashashibi’s responses to my questions were simply not enough to persuade me

otherwise. Although passionate about his cause, and at times articulate with some

of his specific opinions, I did not leave his home with any examples of which one

could point to and say “The BBC is biased right there.” He did, however, impress

me with his thoughts on the importance of impartiality and the promotion of

having correspondents in the necessary areas to tell the right story. I was thus able

to find some common ground with Sharif Nashashibi in our talks.

47

As examined in the section on just a handful of the numerous issues that

have arisen in reporting on the conflict, I also developed a better understand ingof

the political and historical hurdles that not only the BBC, but other news sources

must get over to get information to the world’s news consumers. Between the

structure of broadcast journalism changing nation by nation to appeal to

audiences, the fundamental difference that exists between nations on what is

important to them to stay informed about, and lastly the overall turmoil and

volatility of the Middle Eastern region which keeps the media on its toes in how it

will access information to report to the world, the BBC and other media

institutions must each resolve how to become and remain impartial news sources.

I set the challenge for anyone willing to take it up to find a media

broadcaster in the world which pleases everyone watching, reading, or listening to

its news segments. Like any other industry that exists, there will always be

someone to find fault. This is of course not to say people should not look for ways

to improve issues once they have found them. Since the period of the Balen

Report, the BBC has made a more prominent position of answering to accusations

made against its reporting not only on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but its other

reporting as well. With the spotlight shining on its reporting, a new degree of

transparency at the BBC exists which results in answers being given when

questions are raised. They are no longer in the era of “Thank you for your

concerns, we will look into it.” but rather in a time when in depth answers are

given for issues raised.

48

What I leave this experience with is the knowledge that the BBC, despite

what many on the outside-looking-in try and suggest, does strive for the impartial

stance that the public demands. There is, however, a certain degree of healthiness

to the presence of watchdog groups like Arab Media Watch to continuously press

the BBC for clarification and answers when they come to them with valid

concerns. It is an imperfect system run by imperfect human beings, mistakes will

be made and sometimes they will get it wrong. The BBC is fortunate enough then

to employ people like James Stephenson, Roger Hardy, and Malcolm Balen who

acknowledge this and try to better the system on a daily basis in what they do for

the public at large.

49

Works Cited

Aitken, Robin. Can We Trust the BBC? London, UK: Continuum, 2007. Print.

Ashuri, Tamar. The Arab-Israeli Conflict in the Media: Producing Shared

Memory and National Identity in the Global Television Era. London:

Tauris Academic Studies, 2010. Print.

A Short History of the BBC. British Broadcasting Corporation, 19 Apr. 2002.

Web. 20 Feb. 2010.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1231593.stm>.

Burns, Tom. The BBC: Public Institution and Private Word. London and

Basingstoke: Macmillan Limited, 1977. Print.

Cain, John. The BBC: 70 Years of Broadcasting. London, UK: British

Broadcasting Corporation, 1992. Print.

Crisell, Andrew. An Introductory History of British Broadcasting. 2nd ed.

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2205. Print.

Cronin, David. Europe's Alliance with Israel: Aiding the Occupation. London:

Pluto, 2011. Print.

Foster, Robin. Public Broadcasters: Accountability and Efficiency. Edinburgh:

David Hume Institute, 1992. Print.

Hartley, John. The Politics of Pictures: the Creation of the Public in the Age of

Popular Media. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

"Interview with James Stephenson." Personal interview. 11 Nov. 2009.

"Interview with Malcolm Balen." Personal interview. 14 Oct. 2009.

"Interview with Sharif Nashashibi." Personal interview. 16 Nov. 2009.

"Interview with Roger." Personal interview. 14 Oct. 2009.

Jamal, Amal. Media Politics and Democracy in Palestine: Political Culture,

Pluralism, and the Palestinian Authority. Brighton, England: Sussex

Academic, 2005. Print.

50

Karetzky, Stephen. The Cannons of Journalism: the New York times Propaganda

War against Israel. Stanford, CA: O'Keefe, 1984. Print.

Liebes, Tamar. Reporting the Arab-Israeli Conflict: How Hegemony Works.

London: Routledge, 1997. Print.

McNair, Brian. News and Journalism in the UK. 4th ed. Abingdon, Oxon:

Routledge, 2003. Print.

Nashashibi, Sharif, Shipra Dingare, and Guy Gabriel. Monitoring Study: Media

Coverage of the Goldstone Report on Gaza. Publication. Arab Media

Watch, 2009. Print.

Philo, Greg, and Mike Berry. Bad News from Israel. London: Pluto, 2004. Print.

Rugh, William A. Engaging the Arab & Islamic Worlds through Public

Democracy: a Report and Action Recommendations. Washington, DC:

Public Diplomacy Council, 2004. Print.

Stelter, Brian. "After Raid, Dueling Videos Carry on Fight." The New York Times

1 June 2010. Print.

Tusa, John. A World in Your Ear: Reflections on Changes. London, UK:

Broodside Limited, 1992. Print.

Wood, James. History of International Broadcasting. Vol. 2. London, UK: Peter

Peregrinus Limited, 2000. Print.

51

CAPSTONE SUMMARY

I am an International Relations major and my work is on media bias in

BBC coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the summer of 2009, I began

a program entitled “Politics and Media in the United Kingdom.” Initially this was

because of my focus on international politics, but the program led to my interests

expanding to how governments relate to news sources and other public actors.

Fortunately, with the initial help of Christopher Cook, a professor at SULondon

and radio personality in Great Britain, I was able explore exactly that.

Many are now aware of bias that exists in numerous fields and the Media

is no different. My initial interest in the conflict itself came on a personal level

due to my family's heritage, and I have therefore always held some interest in

what has transpired between these two conflicting nations. In addition, because I

was in a course which focused a great deal on the Media, I spent more time than I

ever had on certain issues including this conflict. It was after a casual

conversation with Professor Cook about my feeling that reporting on the conflict

in the UK was different than that of the US’s coverage, that he explained to me

the controversy of BBC reporting on the conflict.

In order to get a better idea of the BBC today, I first looked at its history to

get an idea of how it had evolved. From its birth in the 1920s as a major radio

broadcaster, it then grew into a television broadcaster in the late 30s and later into

a major internet news source by the mid-90s and despite many viewing the BBC

as a strong institution now, there have been numerous obstacles in its history.

Along with other problems, the BBC faced more issues with new news sources,

and it answered back by overhauling its very infrastructure. Reexamining the

things it broadcasted on television, reorganizing its radio stations and finally, as

52

mentioned, launching BBC online in the 1990s. In this massive overhaul, the

BBC became more famous than it ever had been and not only nationally or in

imperial nations, but to the rest of this world. Of course, with greater awareness

and attention by the public at large comes that many more people with opinions

on what it is you are reporting.

The main section of my thesis is based on the interviews I was fortunate to

do while in the United Kingdom. Roger Hardy of the World Service acted as my

direct channel into the BBC, and in our talks we discussed that news is a flawed

system in and of itself. Media faces numerous layers which can complicate an

overall story: what happens, who witnesses it, who reports on it, who decides on

what stories are broadcasted and who the people are at home listening or

watching. In addition, the birth of new media has completely changed the way

people interact with news. People are now able to watch and read the news and

immediately react to it. Whether it is writing in by way of a website or tweeting

about what they have seen, the public has affected media entities and how they

report by having a newer louder voice. Furthermore, political views of the public

have changed quite a bit in the last 50 years, and this also changes the relationship

between media and the public. During the period of Israel’s birth, spanning 1948

to 1967, it is the opinion of many that European sentiment tended to be fairly Pro-

Israel. Post World War II, many involved in the war were justifiably sympathetic

to the plight of the Jewish people and, therefore, Israel in turn. In addition to this,

the Palestinian narrative and much of what was happening to the Palestinian

people went fairly unnoticed to those outside of the region. It was not until the

1980s, after the Siege of Beirut, when a number of the onlooking global

community began to see Palestinians as true underdogs. The change in political

public opinion is seen to have changed in this period. However, it was not so

much that the British and others in Europe became more Pro-Palestine and less

Pro-Israel, but rather that they became more aware of Israel’s actions and that the

53

conflict was not as simple and straightforward as they might have previously

thought.

Specifically in the political realm, we must take into account Britain

having had a lot at stake because of its business with Arab nations such as Saudi

Arabia as well as its closer proximity to the Middle East. Many issues and

problems came about for instance in Margaret Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister

when the media’s new focus on larger coverage of Palestine came into conflict

with the well known Western political affinity with Israel. It was again later in the

Blair administration when the greater uproar of BBC reporting came about. It

came to a point where government began expressing its distaste for the route the

BBC was taking. As Hardy pointed out to me though, the BBC at almost every

level must strive for that impartiality and get past pleasing people. One must

report, in his words, without fear or favor; events are events and must be reported

on. He said something to me which made me view the entire issue a bit differently

in my later interviews. He said, “Fairness and impartiality should not work like a

tap that one can simply turn on and off when they so choose.”

Another important person to speak with was Malcolm Balen, also known

as the Policeman of the Middle East. The BBC and British government jointly

hired Balen to look into the accusations made against the BBC as being biased,

and then he wrote a report on his findings. He was hired because of his knowledge

expertise on how media “should” fundamentally operate and work. Something

Balen pointed out was that, in his opinion, those who should be running media in

today’s world is the younger generation; they are, after all, more in tune with new

technology and new media. This however creates a fundamental issue; younger

people do not have the same knowledge or memories of what has politically

occurred in the Middle East as older generations. He points out that many

references are made to ‘years’ ago when in essence political references can and

should be made to ‘decades' ago as many of the events that occur today in the

54

conflict stem from the political turmoil that first occurred during Israel’s

formation and sometimes that can be overlooked.

Balen then explained that his job is not to intervene with correspondents

and journalists, rather he was there to observe and then adjust or correct, not to

prevent. He says that in essence, regardless of the BBC’s leaders’ political views

and standing in society, they act under the assumption that those witnessing and

reporting the news are competent, informed, and prepared.

Concerning all of the complaints regarding the BBC that have come about

in the past, he said it came down to four major things. First, simply that people

both in the general public and political groups, can find the contact information of

those working at News organizations. Second, people’s respect for institutions has

overall declined. People no longer sit and listen as much as they use to without

having a verbal or physical reaction to what they witness. People do not trust the

powers that be. Third, as the number of events in the world has grown

increasingly complex and multi-dimensional, so has the reporting on them. The

Media has expanded what they report on in the past 50 some odd years and with

that has come a larger reaction. Whether this stems from religion, economics or

politics. Lastly, the BBC is funded based on a license fee which each TV owning

British subject must pay. This makes the BBC public property and as the political

public has become more and more aware of the power this gives them, the more

and more critical and reactive they have become.

Balen wrote a famous report on BBC reporting which he submitted to a

Content Board which has supposedly considered his recommendations regarding

the BBCs reporting. The word supposedly is used because we do not actually

know what Malcolm Balen concluded from his look into the BBC’s reporting as

the BBC refuses to release the document creating a major uproar from the public

claiming they deserved to know what it was he had found. However, as Britain’s

Freedom of Information Act is fairly new and quite broad, the BBC claims that

55

they have no obligation to release the information. Furthermore, politically

speaking, releasing the document would set a precedent which would lead to a

flood gate opening of demands on seeing other internal BBC documents which

they claim the public has no right to. In the end however, Balen did share his

overarching opinion that he has made quite public. He said, “Impartiality is truly

what lies at the heart of what the BBC does, but it does not mean that in the end,

people don’t make mistakes.” Leaving me and many others with a few more

questions in mind I suppose.

After I spoke with Balen I spoke with the Editor of the evening news,

James Stephenson, who was also the former correspondent from Jerusalem to get

a feel for what people in the field thought. Stephenson told me that regarding

Malcolm Balen, he respected the position he was put in and the relationship he

was asked to have with him. Every three months writing a report and sending it to

Balen and a review board to go over and send back with thoughts and opinions.

When it came to the political accusations of bias, Stephenson told me that

in his opinion he felt that people’s personal perspectives were sometimes what

generated some of the bias itself. He admitted that like everything else, reporting

is not perfect and that when it comes to accusations that the Media is being biased

or imbalanced, it sometimes comes down to the fact that finding mistakes in their

reporting was in the eye of the beholder, and there is no pleasing everyone. He

also wanted to reiterate that as a global institution of information, without a

fundamental focus on impartiality, the BBC itself would fail all together.

In addition, he observed that watching the news at its core was based in a

disconnect between the event and the viewer. As a viewer and reporter himself, he

realized the fundamental difference in how something affected someone on a

couch at home and the person present at the event itself. Sometimes viewers go

into Media consumption with expectations of what they think they will see or

what they think is going on when in reality, especially with such a volatile

56

conflict as in the Middle East, things change and horrible things happen that

sometimes people at home cannot witness or experience. So when a person reads

or watches something about the conflict, it is their pre-existing views which may

shape how they indeed view it.

To point out one of the reasons people are sometimes more skeptical of

Israel for instance, Stephenson referenced a period in which the violence between

Israelis and Palestinians reached even more extreme heights than usual and Israel

completely refused access to the BBC claiming they would be in the way and

further complicate what was already occurring. Stephenson related to me that this

decision was something that hurt Israel in the end because people began to

question Israel’s claim of being a free state when they denied media coverage

access.

In reference to the credibility of the news that is reported, Stephenson

reiterated what Balen and Hardy had both said. A lot of faith is put in

correspondents and the stories they send from their posts are the stories that will

air, no alterations. He pointed out that this was different from the American media

in which practices of script approvals and edits are made. With the BBC, they

trust the correspondent is well informed and factual and because of this, they air

what they receive in London.

An unsettling part of my research was when it came inquiring about the

producing of the news. Stephenson was very up front with me in saying that at the

end of the day, you only have an allotted time in a news report. Many things

happen in a day and there is only so much time to report things to the public.

Furthermore, what is chosen to air is based on the principle that they are in

essence making a television show on channels paid for by the public; they must

appeal to a general audience and stories with audio, video or pictures get run

before stories that do not. He did, however, reiterate that fundamentally, as a news

source, vital information, which the public should not go without, will always run.

57

Overall, Stephenson, like the others at the BBC, restated its mantra that things

may not always go perfectly, but at its core, BBC demands the greatest degree of

impartiality one can expect from a journalist.

Lastly, I spoke with an outsider of the BBC, Sharif Nashishibi of Arab

Media Watch, a media watchdog based in London and it was one of the more

critical and cynical voices on the issue. Nashashibi expressed his dislike of the

BBC’s demand of privacy, and Malcolm Balen’s failure to answer to the very

public which initiated the enquiry to begin with. For Nashashibi it was a matter of

the logistics like word choice and where the stories are reported. Using

excessively elaborate adjectives, he said, was one of the BBCs downfalls as well

as its lack of regional correspondents. Not having reporters in Gaza and the West

Bank is a big mistake. Jerusalem is not the main stumbling block. He pointed out

that when the BBC had people reporting from Palestine, their stories were much

more on point, but with the more recent claims that it was too dangerous to have

reporters in the area, they now rely on Jerusalem. My last clarification with him

was the question that, if the BBC was accused by the public of being so pro-

Palestinian, why did an organization like Arab media watch claim otherwise? He

told me that in their opinion, people did not take the time to take in all of the facts

and really take in what they were seeing. They simply use the parts of the News

that reaffirm their opinion and run with that. In essence, Nashashibi said that it

wasn’t that the BBC was flawed in its reporting to one side or the other, but that it

was in fact flawed in reporting on both sides.

In the end, taking into account all of my interviews and research, it is my

belief that the British Broadcasting Corporation in fact, at its core, works to the

best of its ability to be impartial in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.